Is a dSLR too much camera for a beginner?

The big question is how you plan to use or think you will use the camera. If it's vacation and family stuff, I'd go with a higher end point and shoot that has all the benefits of a P&S but will come with some amount of control of shutter speed and aperture. If you find you are developing a greater interest in those elements and want greater control and flexibility then you can start looking at a DSLR. Even people who own an SLR sometimes like to use a P&S for its greater portability and convenience.

A DSLR is definitely too much if you're only looking to spend $500! Remember, by the time you get a lens and accessories, you'll be upwards of $1000 at a minimum.

On the other hand, if you're really interested in getting into photography, and the price isn't an issue, then it might not be a bad idea.

Like Cameron said, though, the higher end point-and-shoots have a lot of features. For $500, you can get a pretty fancy piece of equipment!

Now it's decided anyway, here's my reply to your original question:
No.
If you're a beginner but plan to become a real enthusiast, an SLR is splendid to learn the job properly from the very beginning. It's the best start into a great hobby and/or profession.


Cees

Holadem, sounds like you've already gotten some very good advice and have made a sound decision. As a digital SLR user, I would make a few points in favor of P&S cameras.

1) As Man-Fai pointed out, the strength of an SLR system is in the lenses. With film SLRs, you could theoretically get the same picture from a $200 SLR as a $2,000 SLR by using the same lens, same film and same settings. Certainly things are a little different in the digital world where the quality of the sensor is an important component of the system. However, since nobody is really going to build a digital SLR with anything but a very good- to excellent-quality sensor (yet), lens quality is still going to be the primary variable in picture quality (aside from the photographer, of course). That said, to really take advantage of a DSLR, you need to invest in lenses. The kit lenses that come with things like the D-Rebel are OK, but really no better than the quality of lenses on decent P&S cameras. Good quality SLR lenses can be had in the $200-500 range, though keep in mind that these are going to be limitied range zoom or prime focus (i.e. non-zooming) lenses, so you will need a few to cover same range of a decent P&S. You will probably get better quality at this point, but now your investment is much greater.

2) A P&S camera actually has one teaching advantage over DSLRs - the ability to see real-time changes to your photo before taking it. With a DSLR, you see your photo immedately after it is taken, which is a huge advatage over film, but you can't see the image before pushing the shutter button. With the P&S camera, you can alter aperture shutter speed and film speed, and watch what is happening real-time, sometimes with a live histogram. Understanding the interplay of these variables is critical to learning photography, so this is really a cool benefit to P&S cameras. In the film days, you pretty much had to start with an SLR if you were serious about learning photographic technique. With high-quality digital P&S cameras, that has all changed. My friend's Olympus C-8080 has a real-time digital viewfinder (technically making it an SLR) in addition to it's pivoting screen, live histogram and on-screen selectable composition grid.

3) Do not underestimate the benefits of a P&S camera's compact nature and simplicity, especially if you are not already a photgraphic hobbyist. An SLR and a quiver of lenses is big, heavy, inconvenient and a pain to haul everywhere. Travel with it and it requires its own luggage. It's a bit of a commitment, and unless you are 100% sure you want to make that commitment, don't throw a ton of money into it. Better to get something easier to use (but still very good quality), see if you take to it, then sell it on Ebay in a year and upgrade.

I was a long-time film SLR photographer, but when I got my first digital, a Canon G1 P&S, I nearly abandoned my other camera. Now I have a Canon 10D to use with all of my existing lenses. I use the system heavily during outdoor activity such as hiking and skiing, and while I love the picture quality, I look back at the G1 which gave me great quality shots from a highly-portable package. I'm eyeing the current crop of high-end P&S cameras with envy right now. You are making a very good choice for your entry into the hobby. Good luck and have fun!

LOTS of people are selling Rebels and D10s cheap as they move up to 20Ds.

See here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10
and
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...f08315a3d29b1f

When I first started thinking about moving to digital I considered the G5, but I desided it was SLR or not at all (I cheated and got a CHEAP Digicam for web snapshots!), and I'm really happy I did. We are about to enter a real exciting time in DSLR history as Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Olympus, Fuji and others start warring on features and price. At 6+ megapixels that battle is dead, now comes the real value to consumers.

Sam

No. Any SLR will allow you to compose your shot, and some (like the DR) will let you check depth of field, but not what changes to the aperature, ISO or exposure time will do. I don't find this that big a deal though (I own a DRebel). You click, look, and if it isn't right, shoot again.

I don't know how much better it is now, but I wasn't that impressed by the P&S models I had tried, especially whe it came to representing my final image properly on the LCD screen. Also, since P&S don't monitor through the lens, composition can be off. I had to do a lot f compensating on the older units I was using.

An argument in favor of the SLR over a P&S is that the investment you make in lenses can be transferred to a new camera body (assuming you stay in the same make, ie. Canon). That nice L glass you bought for your Rebel can be used down the line on a newer model, so upgrading the body doesn't mean ditching any additional lenses or accessories you may have (for the most part).

So far all I have is the kit lens, which has been giving me pretty good results, although I am in dire need of a longer focal distance.

Holadem,

I don't think a dSLR is too much for a beginner. Shelling out close to $1,000 might be too much for someone who is not comitted to digital photography, however.

The SD110 looks like great little camera. Don't under-estimate the value of low weight and small size--it means you'll have the camera with you when a great photo opportunity arises! On the other hand, the SD110 is not manually adjustable, and will not allow you to explore many of the more creative aspects of photography.

I would be inclined to borrow your girlfriend's camera for a while, and if you were still interested to "do more" photographically, then get the dSLR.

When I first got into photography, I bought an inexpensive point & shoot before spending money on an SLR. I would do a lot of research before buying the Digital Rebel or the Nikon D70, because once you buy the body, you’re locking into that company’s system. Already having a Nikon film SLR, MY choice was easy.

The SD110 has a 5.4mm - 10.8mm (35mm - 70mm equivalent) lens 10.8 / 5.4 =2, so it is a 2x zoom

The Digital Rebel kit comes with a 18mm-55mm lens, which is a 3x zoom.

Don't get too hung-up on maximum zoom. Prime lenses (non-zoom) are usually better than zooms, and always better for the money than zooms. Besides, you can use the "foot zoom" and walk closer to, or father away from your subject before taking your picture.


I think you should do more research before plunking down that kind of cash. I would recommend photo.net, as it is a dedicated photography site.

It has reviews of the Digital Rebel and the Nikon D70

The site has a very useful learning section, which should answer many of your basic questions. There is also a section on buying a digital camera

-Scott

Maybe. I'm sure some people will find it hard, but if you're serious, you will probably adjust quickly enough. Obviously, there may be exceptions of course.

FWIW, technically, I never even owned my own camera before getting a digicam ~5 years ago. And then, I spent ~4.5 years shooting w/ LCD preview, instead of viewfinder. But I got used to the D70 quickly enough. I think the speed and handling of a good SLR camera certainly helps the switch back to using viewfinder. Also, you still do get instant feedback w/ a DSLR. And anyway, unless you get used to a digicam that has live histogram preview -- which I never had -- you wouldn't have had particularly accurate indication of exposure w/ the LCD preview anyway. Maybe someday in the not-too-distant future, DSLR's will come w/ live histogram preview too, instead of just the usual basic exposure info.

Yeah, I do occasionally miss the flip out LCD of my G3, but that has never pushed me to pull it out of the bag even when I did carry it around *along* w/ my D70 for the first month I had the D70. I may start carrying the G3 around again if I ever develop a real desire to macro photography. You definitely could use the flip out LCD for that a whole lot.

One thing. I can see if you love shooting B&W and do so in B&W mode w/ LCD preview, then that might be harder to change.

BTW, I checked out the S1 recently at a Best Buy, and I don't know about other people, but I found it to be a terrible camera for candids and the like. It's possible that I'm just too spoiled now by the D70, but the AF seems very slow and the AF/"spot" meter area is way too big. Maybe the manual focus function is barely useable like on my G3 and can compensate, but if it's not, then forget it. I would go check out the Panny alternative instead.

_Man_

Why do you think I ditched my S1 for the guerilla-style photos I take at Dragon Con for my other digital camera, a Canon A70? After a night of having to go to manual focus for the "candid" shots with the S1, I knew it was time to get with a P&S for that duty. But if you can set up the shots, the 10X on the S1 makes up for its slow AF.

The autofocus isn't great but if you press the shutter half way it will lock focus pretty quickly so its really not as big an issue as you might think. But as Pat's experience point out if quick point and shoot photo's are your main objective the S1 isn't likely the camera for you.

_Man_ I do agree its by far the slowest of the digital camera's I've owned and much slower then the A60 I had before...for me though most of my shots are ones like these so its not much of an issue

http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachm...ntid=933&stc=1

http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachm...ntid=934&stc=1

Take the upper and lower numbers of the focal length range. Divide the top one by the bottom one. That's the optical zoom factor.

To answer your original question, it all depends on what your goals are. If you are looking to use the camera simply for snapshots of family, friends, vacations, etc, then a digital p&s should suffice. However, if you are interested in pursuing photography as a serious hobby, then you'd be far better served with the flexibility, and superior image quality, that a dslr can offer.



As for the cost, if you purchase the kit lens with the D-Rebel you will spend less than $100 more than if you bought the body alone. However, I would recommend that you buy the standard 50mm f1.8 instead for about $70 (considerably less at auction). You would get better optics and a normal prime lens is great for learning about photography. Then, as your budget allows, you could buy Canon zooms that are optically superior to the D-Rebel kit lens.



Concerning the lcd/viewfinder, I find that most p&s users ignore the viewfinder and use the lcd to compose their shots. This would be a hard "habit" to use with the D-Rebel, as the lcd only displays the post-exposure image.

There is one other factor that may or may not be of concern to you and that is annoyingly long shutter lag found on most digital P&S cameras.


Good Luck,



Bruce

Shutter lag was always the biggest issue for me with digital cameras as I usually shoot people and expressions are very important.

On the issue of eyeglasses, most SLRs and DSLRs have a built in diopter to adjust for less than perfect vision. It's just a little lever around the viewfinder.

And this actually leads into the subject of becoming acquainted with your camera and choosing the appropriate camera for your needs.

I had a co-worker bring in her SLR to use up a roll of film and she asked me to take a picture of her and a friend. It looked like the focus was off or that the autofocus wasn't functioning. I asked her about it and she had no clue. Turns out the diopter lever was shoved all the way to one side. This only took me a minute to figure out but she was totally clueless about the camera. For her an SLR was too much camera because she had no interest in learning its operation. She either got the thing as a gift or got suckered into a camera package. It was basically a waste of equipment and she would have been better off owning a quality point and shoot.

The D70 really is awesome. I wear glasses and no problems. I actually find the viewfinder of the D70 to be too small. I have a Nikon F90x and its like a front projector compared to the D70. Try looking thru some older manual cameras or any higher end SLRs (just for fun) and you'll see how big VFs can be [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] I can't imagine focusing with a LCD screen or an EVF.



The speed of the D70 is something you'll be spoiled with soon after you get it, if not already. If you are committed to photography, a dSLR is not too much for a beginner.



Oh yeah....get a tripod too.